Posted on 09/10/2007 8:01:56 AM PDT by SmithL
WASHINGTON -- Each year, an estimated 400,000 babies are born in the United States to mothers who are illegal immigrants. More than 25 percent of those babies are born in California.
Although Congress has never passed a law saying so, no president has ever ordered it, and no court has ever ruled on the issue, each of these babies automatically becomes a U.S. citizen when it takes its first breath.
That could change if legislation that Rep. Dan Lungren, R-Gold River, joined in sponsoring in April becomes law.
Lungren, who served as California's attorney general from 1990 to 1998 and worked on the last successful push for an immigration overhaul when he represented Long Beach in the Congress in the 1980s, said he is trying to stimulate a debate on what he believes is a key factor drawing immigrants illegally across the U.S.-Mexico border.
Critics have another word for it.
"Xenophobia," said Crystal Williams, deputy director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. "They are afraid of having more Hispanic citizens."
Contributing to the evolution of U.S. policy is the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Ratified in 1868, after the Civil War, it was intended to ensure that children of freed slaves were extended U.S. citizenship. The amendment states simply that anyone born in the United States and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," is a citizen.
U.S. policy has come to recognize "birthright citizenship" in just about every vital transaction.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
There....fixed it
I think granting citizenship to those born here was a great idea at the time the original law was written. At that time, coming to America was, for nearly anyone, a long, difficult, expensive, and possibly dangerous trip. It was also almost always a one-way trip, not the first in a series of round trips back to the “home country.” The act, itself, of coming to America, was an indication that the traveler was making a major life change and an investment in a new life.
This is no longer true. This is why I no longer think it is a good law.
this is what should have been happening for the last 7 years.
We are at war with and declared by Mexicos last 3 presidents! We just choose to ignore it.
Obviously, Ms. Williams, you are interested in protecting your income stream. Don't pretend that you are somehow on a higher ethical plane. Your name-calling is patently transparent.
From what I understand, this law is totally misunderstood. It was put in place to give slaves citizenship, not others coming into the country and having children born here. It’s used today by the politicians. I agree though, the law needs to be changed. “We the people” can change that law if we really want to. It’s not up to the politicians, it’s up to us.
"Xenophobia," said Crystal Williams, deputy director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. "They are afraid of having more Hispanic citizens."
Well, Crystal, as Bill Baxley, Attorney General of the State of Alabama, said to the Ku Klux Klan...
Okay, nevermind that!
I will GLADLY import a new Hispanic citizen for every Gringo Leftist that we can expel. That's how xenophobic I am!
And if I can be assured--just how, I wouldn't know--that all these new Hispanic citizens would vote the decadent, self-serving, exploitive, destructive, anti-American, and often sociopathic Democrats out of office, I will personally place a welcome mat on the Mexican Border.
So YOU can do what Baxley told the Ku Klux Klan to do!
Most of the 'hispanics' are leftists, socialists. Now what?
Besides...most of the Hispanics I have known--including illegal aliens--tend to be family oriented, good people who want small government and particularly want government to stay out of their lives. As one--very fine--Hispanic man said to me--during a long conversation, during which he and I agreed on everything: "If the government tells me what I can and can't do with my own property--then I don't own the property."
I'm not opposed to Hispanics. I am opposed to (1) unenforced laws, (2) open borders, and (3) Leftists and the Decadent Left--in reverse order of importance.
ping
Children born to illegal immigrants from Mexico are probably granted automatic Mexican citizenship. One might try to make the argument that such infants are not, then, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. But I don't think the argument will hold.
The language of the Fourteenth isn't that complex. Words have meaning. All it would take is another amendment to modify it so that people born here to parents who are here illegally are not citizens. Pretty simple, really.
Heh. I saw that episode in a documentary on the Klan, and Baxley has been my hero since then.
No. It does not.
The implication comes from an "Equal protection under the Law" case in Texas that The Supreme Court wrote an opinion on. No where in the opinion did it "recognize" that children of illegal aliens born in the u.S. were citizens. Actually the opposite is true, the opinion recognized them as illegal aliens.
There was no law written. It's an unconstitutional interpretation of an unconstitutional ruling. Contrary to popular whiz-dumb, the 14th Amendment actually written to preclude birthright citizenship because it is an affront to the citizens of other nations. It's a long post, but it's got some great information.
This article concerns the now infamous Citizenship Clause as regards supposedly conferring birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens:
Most people regard this clause as self-explanitory, believing that to be "subject to the jurisdiction," all one has to do is to be within the territory of the United States. Thus they conclude that children of illegal aliens are obviously US citizens.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
If I'm driving in Britain, I have to obey their traffic laws because I am WITHIN British jurisdiction. That doesn't make me a British SUBJECT. Now, lest you think there is a difference between that usage of the word "subject" and the one in the Citizenship Clause, let's consult the Bouvier Law Dictionary 1856 edition, as it is the one most commonly used at the time the 14th Amendment was drafted and ratified. In this instance, the contextual usage of "subject" in the definition is exactly the same as that employed in the Citizenship Clause:
2. In monarchical governments, by subject is meant one who owes permanent allegiance to the monarch. Vide Body politic; Greenl. Ev. §286; Phil. & Am. on Ev. 732, n. 1.
As written and ratified, the 14th Amendment was never intended to grant citizenship to the children of foreign subjects, whether they were here legally or not. Senator Jacob Howard, a co-author of the Citizenship Clause offered his interpretation in 1866:
Note the ambiguity in this statement. This was first confirmed in the Slaughterhouse Cases, the first Supreme Court interpretation of the 14th Amendment on record. The author of the majority opinion was a contemporary of those who drafted and debated the Amendment. The following text is from the majority opinion:
Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872) (USSC+)Thus, Senator Howard and Justice Miller recognized three classes of people to whom the 14th Amendment citizenship clause would not apply: foreigners (tourists here temporarily), aliens (those here illegally but who have no intention of leaving), and foreign diplomats (here legally and in a special protected status who will leave upon the expiration of their term).
Opinions
MILLER, J., Opinion of the Court
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
The first observation we have to make on this clause is that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States. That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.
Returning to the Amendment itself, Section 5 cedes control of implementing its provisions back to Congress, "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.". So, because the Constitution is a limiting document, the wording of the 14th Amendment citizenship clause means that no new categories can be invented outside those in the Amendment, such as children of visiting or resident aliens; i.e., they may not grant birthright citizenship to the children of illegals, nor the equivalent.
Justice Miller's aside in the Slaughterhouse Cases is not the holding in the case, and therefore has no compulsory value as precedent. However, the majority opinion, because it was contemporaneous with the ratification of the 14th Amendment, records the understanding of those who drafted, passed, and ratified the Amendment. It therefore does have value in constructing an originalist interpretation.
Still, Miller's statement is mere dicta, an assertion having little to nothing to do with the case under consideration. Dicta is normally not considered to be equivalent to precedent. Would that such were really true. The fact is that when the Courts want to use it as such, they do. Consider the consequences of Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific (118 U.S. 394 (1886)). A headnote, written by the court clerk after the decision and having NOTHING to do with the case, supposedly established equal protection for fictitious persons (corporations), (which may in fact have been (railroad lawyers) Conkling and Bingham’s original intent, but was not the understanding of those ratifying the Amendment). Interestingly, that self same court clerk, Court Reporter J. C. Bancroft Davis, was a corporate socialist, a student of Marx, and had a record of falsifying documents. So to ignore Chief Justice Miller's interpretation in the Slaughterhouse Cases while adhering to a clerk's headnote in Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific makes a mockery of jurisprudence, "settled law" notwithstanding.
US v. Wong Kim Ark effectively says that Miller's opinion didn't matter because the majority was going to redefine the phrase, "subject to the jurisdiction," as they saw fit, which is consistent with the behavior of the corporate attorneys who dominated the Supreme Court in those days.
So let's take a look at just who these concurring legal geniuses on the Court really were in US v. Wong Kim Ark:
We have George Shiras, a prominent (drum roll please) railroad lawyer with no prior judicial experience and friend to corporate railroad barons with a rather keen interest in retaining Chinese coolies. Kinda reminds you of something rather more contemporary, doesn't it?
We have Horace Gray, author of the majority opinion, a buddy of Brandeis, Holmes, and other noted court activists and a big fan of paper money.
We have Yalie David Brewer, founder of the American Society of International Law, peace advocate, and judicial activist toward using the court to supersede State laws.
We have Yalie Henry Brown, , author of Plessy v. Ferguson!!!, and a huge fan of the use of Admiralty Law as a regulatory means (even though he hired a substitute to serve in the military for him in the Civil War).
The The dissenting opinion to this travesty was vigorous, a work that rings with predictions of the consequences we see today. It was written by Chief Justice Melville Fuller, a big fan of Thomas Cooley’s Treatise on Constitutional Limitations and a champion of individual property rights. Joining him was John Marshall Harlan, who had the temerity to oppose broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause and opposed Plessy v. Ferguson. (Justice McKenna did not participate as he was newly confirmed.)
Fuller's dissent began with simple logic, which should have been enough to collapse the opposition were they not committed to corrupted ends:
The tie which bound the child to the crown was indissoluble. [169 U.S. 649, 707] The nationality of his parents had no bearing on his nationality. Though born during a temporary stay of a few days, the child was irretrievably a British subject. Hall, Foreign Jur. 15.
The rule was the outcome of the connection in feudalism between the individual and the soil on which he lived, and the allegiance due was that of liege men to their liege lord. It was not local and temporary, as was the obedience to the laws owed by aliens within the dominions of the crown, but permanent and indissoluble, and not to be canceled by any change of time or place or circumstances.
It's pretty strong language for a Supreme Court Justice. He has good reason. Citizenship appertains exclusively to the allegiance of parentage, else the choices and preferences of those parents as legitimately exercised under law, including changing citizenship by naturalization, is not something so easily superseded unless the State has a claim on the baby superceding the allegiances of the parents!!! Allegiances of parentage are not so easily transgressed in law as one might suppose either. Back to the dissenting opinion:
It’s really quite an opinion; I recommend that everyone to read it. Fuller goes on to cite Story, Taney, and any number of opinions from within the Department of State, proving that Gray et al. could in no way honestly be citing historical precedent within the US as regards common law in this instance. He includes citation to the Federal Convention as well, indicating that the issue was raised and disposed in opposition of the majority opinion.
When he’s done with court and general pre-war precedent regarding citizenship, then Fuller looks to the essential precedent to the 14th Amendment, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, passed a mere two months before the drafting of the Amendment:
The words 'not subject to any foreign power' do not in themselves refer to mere territorial jurisdiction, for the persons referred to are persons born in the United States. All such persons are undoubtedly subject to the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, and yet the act concedes that, nevertheless, they may be subject to the political jurisdiction of a foreign government. In other words, by the terms of the act, all persons born in the United States, and not owing allegiance to any foreign power, are citizens.
Additionally, citizens of a foreign country are usually expressly prohibited from taking other citizenship without having renounced their native allegiance. It is patently illogical that the standards applied to children would be different than that applied to their parents.
Fuller completed his treatise addressing treaties between China and the US as well.
As to Mr. Howard's oratory in chambers (as opposed to written work), whether it should have included an "OR," frankly, that you find it necessary to make a Constitutional distinction between the children of diplomats and those of invaders and travellers is to render our treaty understandings with those countries and their jurisdiction over their citizens laughable. It is to show NO RESPECT for any other nation on earth and flies in the face of our nation's understanding of equal protection under the law.
My point in all this detail is that the children of LEGAL aliens aren't legitimate 14th Amendment citizens either.
My posts from a while back...
75 of 87
OK OK OK Everyone!
We are all stumbling around this thing and it has already been commented on by the Supreme Court! This is the actual text of their commentary on the actual meaning of "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" which the libs all wanna scream about but the SC commentary is what they never talk about.
It is in regards to the 14th amendment case which examined the issue of equal protection. Specifically, weather the State of Texas can legally withhold funds to schools to cover the extra costs of education illegal alien children and children of illegal aliens.
If one actually reads the entirety of Plyler v. Doe 457 U.S. 202 the question of "birthright NON-citizenship"is right there.
News/Activism 06/23/2007 10:01:07 AM CDT · 97 of 104
“...subject to the jurisdiction thereof" Plyler v. Doe 457 U.S. 202
Ok, let's just have a good look here...
" The court majority found that the Texas law was "directed against children, and impose[d] its discriminatory burden on the basis of a legal characteristic over which children can have little control" — namely, the fact of their having been brought illegally into the United States by their parents. "
Sorry, but the SC said nothing about the issue of are they or are they not citizens. It refers to Supreme Court of the United States striking down a state statute denying funding for education to children OF illegal aliens. It does NOT say they are citizens.
In fact, it does state the following...
" To be sure, like all persons who have entered the United States unlawfully, these children are subject to deportation. 8 U.S.C. 1251, 1252 (1976 ed. and Supp. IV). But there is no assurance that a child subject to deportation will ever be deported. An illegal entrant might be granted federal permission to continue to reside in this country, or even to become a citizen. See, e. g., 8 U.S.C. 1252, 1253(h), 1254 (1976 ed. and Supp. IV)."
Clearly, anchor babies are NOT CITIZENS.
This is made absolutely clear further in the case...
" Children born in this country to illegal alien parents, including some of appellees' siblings, (thus including them in the defintion of and as “appellees”) are not excluded from the Texas schools. Nor does Texas discriminate against appellees because of their Mexican origin or citizenship."
This is not saying that Children born in this country to illegal alien parents are U.S. citizens! It is clearly saying that they are MEXICAN CITIZENS.
one more time...
This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States...
Jacob Howard, 1866
*************
Children born in this country to illegal alien parents, including some of appellees' >>> siblings,<<< (thus including them as “appellees”) are not excluded from the Texas schools. Nor does Texas discriminate against appellees because of their Mexican origin or citizenship.
In other words the appellees children (siblings) are also considered appellees in the case and the appellees of the case are described by the Court as Mexican citizens.
Very clear and very simple. And it has been there all along.
But the libs are really good a pushing a catch phrase and "subject to the jurisdiction" from the 14th amendment is it on this issue.
I do not believe that the Supreme Court just "kinda forgot" to address that aspect of the issue in the light of the fact that they are specifically comparing illegal aliens right to protection under the 14th amendment to American Citizens right to protection under the 14th amendment.
IOW, no sale, AB's are not American Citizens.
Easy shot at that apple: Mexico, in its grasp for influence over the the massive outflux of its poorer citizens, passed a law (1979?) officially conferring dual citizenship on those travelers and their progeny. So nice when one's enemies do the hard work for you.
Looks like their all deportable to me. This certainly throws out the argument that deporting children of illegals from Mexico imperils their "rights". Mexico has to care for them and grant them every right a Mexican deserves.
Imagine the complaint from Mexico if the US passed a law making it a crime for illegal immigrants to take infant US citizens out of the country.
Other postings have clarified that foreign diplomats, who have diplomatic immunity and whose child is born in the US, are certainly not subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Such diplomats refuse to subject themselves to the jurisdiction of the US and are allowed their special status by virtue of treaties, and, I believe, can be ordered out of the country at any time.
Similarly, illegal immigrants have, by virtue of their illegal entry into the US, refused to subject themselves to the jurisdiction of the US. Can their infants be subject to jurisdiction that their parents have refused? Perhaps not.
They would have been wiser to try the next part: "except Indians", as the murky cross-national relationships of the tribes could have been a field day for immigration attorneys. Unlike the "bad old days" Indians have cut out a lucrative niche using their extra-national status (casinos, tourism, etc.).
Amusingly, our Indians don't wish to be associated with Mexicans while Mexicans of obvious Indian descent go out of their way to deny it. But I'M a racist? Lollol!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.